As a symbol of faith, of patriarchal oppression, of political resistance, the hijab or the chador weighs significantly more than a few yards of fabric. Additionally, it is the often overlooked barometer of the climate of international political affairs.

Nowhere is it truer than in Iran, where the laws and the practices of wearing the chador (the most intrinsically Persian form of the veil) have consistently been intertwined with Iran's relations with the West. After the CIA coup against Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953 and the reinstatement of the shah, women began wearing chadors again to show their distaste for the West.

Now, more than 30 years later, the wearing of the chador or the hijab has become a matter of religious and thus legal obligation - and is no longer a matter of choice. As the rhetoric between U.S. and Iranian policymakers intensifies, so do the laws curtailing women's rights in Iran. Is this coincidence or consequence?

Before the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005, women in Iran had increasing leeway regarding clothing and education. As of 2002, schoolgirls could take off the hijab in school, and in 2004, women were allowed to train as police officers for the first time since the 1979 revolution.

But after the 2005 election, many reformist policies toward women were immediately overturned. For example, Ahmadinejad ordered the closing of the Presidential Center for Women's Participations, as well as the destruction of the books and publications held within this valuable resource.

There is a long list of subtle and not-so-subtle setbacks for women in Iran. Remarkably, these setbacks have followed the toughening of Western attitude against Iran. A clear example is the arrest of hundreds of women and the renewed enforcement of Islamic dress that immediately followed the U.N. Security Council's unanimous passage of Resolution 1747. The U.N. measure, which was approved March 24, tightened sanctions against Iran because of the country's nuclear program. As late as last week, the Bush administration was pushing for more sanctions, with various news agencies reporting that Vice President Dick Cheney was calling for targeted air strikes in retaliation for Iran's alleged support of insurgents in Iraq.

It will be interesting to notice how this affects women in Iran. Certainly the crackdown on dress code has significantly increased in recent months.

Women seem to have become the externalities of the confrontation between the U.S.-led Western position and Iran over security issues. The long and slow process of loosening the religious laws toward women in Iran has been lost because of nationalistic protectionist pride and renewed zeal for anti-Western expressions.

Since the time of Reza Pahlavi's ban of the veil in 1939, the chador has persisted in being a symbol of protection against the corruption of perceived Western imperialism, and the current crisis is no different for women caught in the cross-fire of today's nuclear debate.

Indeed, national identity and religion in Iran are largely interchangeable. This often seamless intertwining has a compound effect on the status of women in Iranian society. In construction of national identities, it is often the case that women are made to be responsible for the purity of the national, cultural and ethnic heritage.

Most societies, when they solidify as distinct from others, have strong policies of control over women's rights. This has a dual effect when outside forces engage in aggressive tactics against the country and has to be understood within the framework of an Iranian psyche, repeatedly traumatized by invaders, be it the Greeks, the Arab-Muslims, Great Britain or the United States.

Coercive attempts against what the Iranian government deems as its sovereignty can only be met by strong nationalistic reactions, making women bear the brunt of an identity perceived to be under threat. Ironically, the media reporting of the increased oppression of women in Iran could potentially sway American public opinion toward even stronger tactics against the Islamic leadership that in a self-perpetuating cycle would only heighten the stand-off between the two countries.

In heightening the already pervasive fear of others in Iran, the U.S. administration is causing a reaction - fueled by nationalistic feelings - that includes the suppression of women's rights in Iran.

If we are true to our word about spreading freedom and democracy in the Middle East, we need to remember that women's rights are intrinsic to democracy. Therefore, any policies that ultimately weaken those rights are counterproductive to our broader agenda.

Conversely, using a less threatening rhetoric would lessen the nationalistic reaction in Iran, allowing room for voices of dissent, including those of women, who traditionally have a different approach to matters of state security. If the United States and its allies reach out to Iran as a regional partner as opposed to a rogue state, the nuclear issue can be negotiated among equals - which is not only the right approach, it is one of necessity.